We notice not just because they mention video games, hey, drinking is my hobby too and I'm not upset about them mentioning that, nor would I be if they made that the headline. It's not that they mentioned a hobby of ours, it's that every time there is a violent incident Fox News, Jack Thompson, and a bunch of other folks start spouting on about how it was video games, and there are people who believe them. Video games are the hot thing to blame right now, and that's why there's more of a backlash from gamers who know better whenever they're instantly connected with a violent crime, or when someone uses them as an excuse.
I think the problem here is they mention the video game twice, but they never mention the kids being drunk. The kid himself does, when he says "I don't know, I was drunk." The reporter never explains that, hwoever.
And the other bit, about Fox News and Jack Thompson, don't forget this was on CNN. ;-)
I just wanna say that a healthy, sane human being would never beat a 7-year old kid, especially ONE'S OWN SISTER to death, no matter how fucking drunk one was.
EDIT: And leave Scarab alone, he's good people. He plays Company of Heroes.
I just wanna say that a healthy, sane human being would never beat a 7-year old kid, especially ONE'S OWN SISTER to death, no matter how fucking drunk one was.
I've seen some people display some very fucked up urges and previously unknown facets of their personalities when heavily under the influence. I wish it were easier to tell who is a closet psycho, because sometimes it's a complete surprise when their inhibitions are removed.
EDIT: And leave Scarab alone, he's good people. He plays Company of Heroes.
What who? I Scarab, I just pointed out that video games go back further than 20 years is all.
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues. Anything else I can hear from my friends.
The whole issue with video games and violence, has been done to death. I dont think we have to worry about "VIDEOGAEMZ GONE FOREVERZ"
Anyone want to link to the Wired article with all the things that were condemend before Video Games?
spamtastick on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I just wanna say that a healthy, sane human being would never beat a 7-year old kid, especially ONE'S OWN SISTER to death, no matter how fucking drunk one was.
EDIT: And leave Scarab alone, he's good people. He plays Company of Heroes.
Sane human beings have been part of atrocities throughout history. And not just globally I'm talking locally.
The truth as I see it is that an average person can be just as dangerous as any disturbed individual. Everyone has a darker side and with the right trigger it will come out.
wait, why the hell were these kids imitating mortal kombat?
did they time travel from 1992?
Mortal Kombat is still going strong. Just because they didn't specifically say "Oh I was practicing moves from Mortal Kombat: Armageddon" doesn't mean they were talking about the original title. Hell, the media didn't even spell the name of the game right.
wait, why the hell were these kids imitating mortal kombat?
did they time travel from 1992?
Mortal Kombat is still going strong. Just because they didn't specifically say "Oh I was practicing moves from Mortal Kombat: Armageddon" doesn't mean they were talking about the original title. Hell, the media didn't even spell the name of the game right.
thanks for the history lesson. I'm clearly in the dark when it comes to recent video games.
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
most news outlets don't even report news. they all buy them from AP or Reuters.
no matter how strong mortal kombat is right now, this is obvious bullshit
it is physically impossible to perform mortal kombat moves
shooting spirit arrows, teleporting right behind a dude, freezing a dude and then ripping out his spine, blowing a kiss to a dude an then he vomits out all of his intestines, shooting a harpoon through a dude's chest, turning your own head backwards, yelling "GET OVER HERE" and then whipping the harpoon forward, shooting a fireball at a dude
like, if they managed to do any of those moves, I am extremely impressed
Randall_Flagg on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
most news outlets don't even report news. they all buy them from AP or Reuters.
Yep. Very true.
As for this story, its a shame what happened to the kid. I don't agree with the fervor over video games causing these kind of tragedies, but I can understand people grasping for something, trying to understand them.
EDIT: I'm talking about regular people here, not the media whore-mongering of the issue.
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
most news outlets don't even report news. they all buy them from AP or Reuters.
Yep. Very true.
It's also worth noting that I'm having trouble thinking of a new agency which ISN'T ad based. Even china's CCTV gets it's money from ad revenue, not from government funding.
EDIT: And even then, CCTV just buys it's news from AP or Reuters. Modern news reporting is a fucking travesty if you actually research it.
I wasnt in any way implying gaming in general is only 20 years old. I was referring to fighting games of the same style as Mortal Kombat which is referenced in the article. Which are indeed about 20 years old.
The_Scarab on
0
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Really the News headline should read.
Retarded kids do retarded things and retarded parents look for retarded scapegoat.
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
I know that other countrys newspapers have ads as well, but generally, reading sources outside your own country tend to have far less bias. In no way am I saying that there is a biasless source of news.
I myself read the guardian uk, because in my opinion they seem less biased
I dont think I can completely trust any media outlet that makes its money off Ad Revenue or how many viewers. I think the best bet for getting news is reading another country's newspaper about global issues.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
most news outlets don't even report news. they all buy them from AP or Reuters.
Yep. Very true.
It's also worth noting that I'm having trouble thinking of a new agency which ISN'T ad based. Even china's CCTV gets it's money from ad revenue, not from government funding.
EDIT: And even then, CCTV just buys it's news from AP or Reuters. Modern news reporting is a fucking travesty if you actually research it.
The AP is not really a monolithic organization, but a "not-for-profit" cooperative, made up of 1,500 newspapers. So basically, any newspaper story could potentially be an AP story and appear on the AP wire. Is it a consolidation of news? Sort of, but it's pretty necessary if you want a newspaper or television station to have the ability to report on everything. Even then, nothing prevents the subscriber from doing their own research and adding to the report (which is why you'll sometime see "contributions were made by staff writer Jane Doe"). And local events and prominent national events, will almost always be covered by local staff (not that local staff are necessarily any better than the individual staff members at the AP bureaus).
Now, talking heads like Bill O'Reily or Nancy Grace, people who feed upon news items and turn them into their own agendas, yeah now those are fucking travesties.
Invisible on
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The AP is not really a monolithic organization, but a "not-for-profit" cooperative, made up of 1,500 newspapers. So basically, any newspaper story could potentially be an AP story and appear on the AP wire. Is it a consolidation of news? Sort of, but it's pretty necessary if you want a newspaper or television station to have the ability to report on everything. Even then, nothing prevents the subscriber from doing their own research and adding to the report (which is why you'll sometime see "contributions were made by staff writer Jane Doe"). And local events and prominent national events, will almost always be covered by local staff (not that local staff are necessarily any better than the individual staff members at the AP bureaus).
Now, talking heads like Bill O'Reily or Nancy Grace, people who feed upon news items and turn them into their own agendas, yeah now those are fucking travesties.
They're not really travesties. Not that I like either one, but their shows are just editorials. If you think of them as news, then yes, they're "biased." But they're editorials first and foremost, just like Rush, Glenn Beck, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, Larry King, and whoever the fuck else.
The AP is not really a monolithic organization, but a "not-for-profit" cooperative, made up of 1,500 newspapers. So basically, any newspaper story could potentially be an AP story and appear on the AP wire. Is it a consolidation of news? Sort of, but it's pretty necessary if you want a newspaper or television station to have the ability to report on everything. Even then, nothing prevents the subscriber from doing their own research and adding to the report (which is why you'll sometime see "contributions were made by staff writer Jane Doe"). And local events and prominent national events, will almost always be covered by local staff (not that local staff are necessarily any better than the individual staff members at the AP bureaus).
Now, talking heads like Bill O'Reily or Nancy Grace, people who feed upon news items and turn them into their own agendas, yeah now those are fucking travesties.
They're not really travesties. Not that I like either one, but their shows are just editorials. If you think of them as news, then yes, they're "biased." But they're editorials first and foremost, just like Rush, Glenn Beck, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, Larry King, and whoever the fuck else.
In the sense that they're behind the push towards sensationalism, yeah they are travesties. In the sense, that many people get their news and often their opinions from them, yes they are travesties. They don't offer themselves up as editorials, they offer themselves up as "Fair and Balanced." They mingle advertisements in that say things like "Fox News: The only name in news." They try to blur the line between reporting and editorials. So yeah, fucking travesties at least in my eyes.
Rock and roll music was the pariah of all things moral and wholesome. Over time that crown was passed to heavy metal. And now, of course, it's video games.
Following that logic, Rock Band should without a doubt be the most evil, vile, corruptive, wicked thing ever borne upon this Earth.
Yet, it's widely regarded as perhaps the most family friendly AAA release this year.
alot of people have made the point that there was no way the parents could have known that this tragedy would have happened, there was no way that they could have prepared for it. I'll come right out and say it, your wrong, dead fucking wrong, and that attitude that the parents couldn't do anything to stop it is why little girls end up dead.
Think back to when you were 17, did your parents approve of all your friends? I know mine didn't, I had to be careful about who I brought home, my parents were pretty watchful about who I associated with because they realized that not all parents were as vigilant as they were. There weren't any younger children to protect, they just knew that if they wanted me to grow up to be a good and decent man, they needed to keep me from doing drugs and hanging with the wrong crowd.
In all honesty they didn't really keep me from doing either, but they did keep me from bringing it home with me, and in the end the separation between that home life and the excesses of my youth (honestly I'm still pretty young, but it's all relative) provided the grounding that allowed me to make the transition from rebellious teen to responsible adult.
The point is, if I had been in that situation, this shit never would have happened, I wouldn't have been drunk when I had such a responsibility, if only because I feared getting caught, I may have been a stupid rebellious little punk, but I knew better than to do that stuff around the house, especially if there was a little kid around. The difference between me and these two delinquents, other than I don't think I could kill a 7 year old girl even if I wanted to, is that I would have known better than to set myself up in that situation, because my parents saw to it that I new better than to do that kind of shit around their house.
alot of people have made the point that there was no way the parents could have known that this tragedy would have happened, there was no way that they could have prepared for it. I'll come right out and say it, your wrong, dead fucking wrong, and that attitude that the parents couldn't do anything to stop it is why little girls end up dead.
Think back to when you were 17, did your parents approve of all your friends? I know mine didn't, I had to be careful about who I brought home, my parents were pretty watchful about who I associated with because they realized that not all parents were as vigilant as they were. There weren't any younger children to protect, they just knew that if they wanted me to grow up to be a good and decent man, they needed to keep me from doing drugs and hanging with the wrong crowd.
In all honesty they didn't really keep me from doing either, but they did keep me from bringing it home with me, and in the end the separation between that home life and the excesses of my youth (honestly I'm still pretty young, but it's all relative) provided the grounding that allowed me to make the transition from rebellious teen to responsible adult.
The point is, if I had been in that situation, this shit never would have happened, I wouldn't have been drunk when I had such a responsibility, if only because I feared getting caught, I may have been a stupid rebellious little punk, but I knew better than to do that stuff around the house, especially if there was a little kid around. The difference between me and these two delinquents, other than I don't think I could kill a 7 year old girl even if I wanted to, is that I would have known better than to set myself up in that situation, because my parents saw to it that I new better than to do that kind of shit around their house.
You know, I think its reasonable to assume your kid is not a homicidal maniac who will end up killing his 7 year old sister. They probably also had no clue that he was planning on getting drunk, once they left. Some kids can be pretty good at hiding their drug taking habits. Also, it sounds like both parents had to work, and they couldn't supervise everything their son did.
Now, if it turns out they knew that their son was drunk or highly likely to be drunk, or there was previous violent incidents they deserve to suffer the penalty of the law. I just believe people shouldn't just automatically blame the kid's parent whenever the kid does something really bad. Sometimes, it is just *gasp* the kid's own damn fault.
Incidentally, the drunkeness has almost as little to do with it as the gaming, in my opinion. I get drunk frequently, and yet am never visited by purposeful or accidental homicides. An alcohol buzz, or even full-on drunkeness, only reduces your inhibitions -- it doesn't change who you are or what you stand for. Also, it can again be tracked down to the parents.
My parents didn't prevent me from drinking underage, and took more of a European approach: if your kids know it's okay with you that they drink in more-or-less moderation, and that it's not a huge deal, it becomes not a huge deal for them, either. It's not a cool rebellion thing, anymore, it's just something humans do to wind down or in certain social situations. To be given license to do something is often equivalent to being given control of it -- and people are more responsible of things they control.
To me, it comes down to parenting. Yes, yes, there is the extremely rare circumstance of good parents who happen to have a previously-undetected psychotic kid -- but that's damn rare. Usually, good parenting results in at least decent kids, and good parenting also detects an unbalanced kid and gets appropriate help. The "I had no idea my son might do this!" clause is indicative of bad parenting. You raised them their whole lives, so except in rare circumstances, an alert and careful parent has some fucking warning their kid is a murderer.
[my parents] just knew that if they wanted me to grow up to be a good and decent man, they needed to keep me from doing drugs and hanging with the wrong crowd.
In all honesty they didn't really keep me from doing either
i'd like to find Lamar Roberts, and Heather Trujillo and have them hung them by their tongues. They deserve some kind of Mortal Kombat death like that. The punishment should fit the crime in this case.
I know I killed a few people after learning how to freeze them to death and decapitate them with a fucking spear after playing Mortal Kombat.
Before MK all I could do was jump really high and squish my friends flat, although finding a turtle shell really helped when they lined up in a neat row.
Though I can't talk much longer. Ive been playing space invaders and now that I know how to shoot down planes with a pistol Im going to stop potential terrorists, FOR AMERICA!
Bedlam on
0
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
Brilliant parenting at work. Leave your kid with two drunk teens. Excellent.
Seriously. Want to know why these parents will play up the Mortal Kombat imitations on Faux News? To stay out of fucking prison.
There wasn't anything in the article that indicated that they were drinking when the mother left the 7-year-old in their care, and it wasn't just random kids, the 7-year-old and 17-year-old were half sisters. I mean, I'm all about parents taking responsibility, but you can't expect them to by psychic about really, really dumb shit their kids might do.
'Oh shit I did something bad. Time to find a scapegoat'
Transformed into a fire mage? Bull fucking shit. You poured gasoline over a classmate and set em on fire you sick fuck. No amount of scapegoating is even remotely gonna save your ass.
This has nothing to do with WOW or video games. Its about people throughout history scapegoating popular media for their heinous crimes. It used to be rock music, or violent cinema. Now its just games.
Posts
thirty-five, duder. Pong was November 1972.
This x makes people violent shit is so funny. First it was Elvis and the Beatles. Then it was Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest. Now it's video games.
Pong wasnt the first video game but I explain earlier my arbitrary '20 years' comment. Basically Im stupid and lazy.
I think the problem here is they mention the video game twice, but they never mention the kids being drunk. The kid himself does, when he says "I don't know, I was drunk." The reporter never explains that, hwoever.
And the other bit, about Fox News and Jack Thompson, don't forget this was on CNN. ;-)
EDIT: And leave Scarab alone, he's good people. He plays Company of Heroes.
When I read that I just get the image of some kid ripping another's spine out.
I never asked for this!
I've seen some people display some very fucked up urges and previously unknown facets of their personalities when heavily under the influence. I wish it were easier to tell who is a closet psycho, because sometimes it's a complete surprise when their inhibitions are removed.
What who? I
did they time travel from 1992?
Mortal Kombat isn't vector graphics and neither was the Virtual Boy. both used rasterized graphics.
The whole issue with video games and violence, has been done to death. I dont think we have to worry about "VIDEOGAEMZ GONE FOREVERZ"
Anyone want to link to the Wired article with all the things that were condemend before Video Games?
Sane human beings have been part of atrocities throughout history. And not just globally I'm talking locally.
The truth as I see it is that an average person can be just as dangerous as any disturbed individual. Everyone has a darker side and with the right trigger it will come out.
Mortal Kombat is still going strong. Just because they didn't specifically say "Oh I was practicing moves from Mortal Kombat: Armageddon" doesn't mean they were talking about the original title. Hell, the media didn't even spell the name of the game right.
thanks for the history lesson. I'm clearly in the dark when it comes to recent video games.
And most of them don't run ads for revenue?
When watching any media, the best thing to remember is they all have a bias one way or another. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks, even foreign sources outside the US, all of them do. You may agree or disagree with their particular spin on the news, but its present all the same.
most news outlets don't even report news. they all buy them from AP or Reuters.
it is physically impossible to perform mortal kombat moves
shooting spirit arrows, teleporting right behind a dude, freezing a dude and then ripping out his spine, blowing a kiss to a dude an then he vomits out all of his intestines, shooting a harpoon through a dude's chest, turning your own head backwards, yelling "GET OVER HERE" and then whipping the harpoon forward, shooting a fireball at a dude
like, if they managed to do any of those moves, I am extremely impressed
I have actually seen this happen.
Okay not really but I've known situations where this seemed possible.
Yep. Very true.
As for this story, its a shame what happened to the kid. I don't agree with the fervor over video games causing these kind of tragedies, but I can understand people grasping for something, trying to understand them.
EDIT: I'm talking about regular people here, not the media whore-mongering of the issue.
It's also worth noting that I'm having trouble thinking of a new agency which ISN'T ad based. Even china's CCTV gets it's money from ad revenue, not from government funding.
EDIT: And even then, CCTV just buys it's news from AP or Reuters. Modern news reporting is a fucking travesty if you actually research it.
Retarded kids do retarded things and retarded parents look for retarded scapegoat.
Satans..... hints.....
I know that other countrys newspapers have ads as well, but generally, reading sources outside your own country tend to have far less bias. In no way am I saying that there is a biasless source of news.
I myself read the guardian uk, because in my opinion they seem less biased
The AP is not really a monolithic organization, but a "not-for-profit" cooperative, made up of 1,500 newspapers. So basically, any newspaper story could potentially be an AP story and appear on the AP wire. Is it a consolidation of news? Sort of, but it's pretty necessary if you want a newspaper or television station to have the ability to report on everything. Even then, nothing prevents the subscriber from doing their own research and adding to the report (which is why you'll sometime see "contributions were made by staff writer Jane Doe"). And local events and prominent national events, will almost always be covered by local staff (not that local staff are necessarily any better than the individual staff members at the AP bureaus).
Now, talking heads like Bill O'Reily or Nancy Grace, people who feed upon news items and turn them into their own agendas, yeah now those are fucking travesties.
They're not really travesties. Not that I like either one, but their shows are just editorials. If you think of them as news, then yes, they're "biased." But they're editorials first and foremost, just like Rush, Glenn Beck, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, Larry King, and whoever the fuck else.
In the sense that they're behind the push towards sensationalism, yeah they are travesties. In the sense, that many people get their news and often their opinions from them, yes they are travesties. They don't offer themselves up as editorials, they offer themselves up as "Fair and Balanced." They mingle advertisements in that say things like "Fox News: The only name in news." They try to blur the line between reporting and editorials. So yeah, fucking travesties at least in my eyes.
Rock and roll music was the pariah of all things moral and wholesome. Over time that crown was passed to heavy metal. And now, of course, it's video games.
Following that logic, Rock Band should without a doubt be the most evil, vile, corruptive, wicked thing ever borne upon this Earth.
Yet, it's widely regarded as perhaps the most family friendly AAA release this year.
Irony?
Think back to when you were 17, did your parents approve of all your friends? I know mine didn't, I had to be careful about who I brought home, my parents were pretty watchful about who I associated with because they realized that not all parents were as vigilant as they were. There weren't any younger children to protect, they just knew that if they wanted me to grow up to be a good and decent man, they needed to keep me from doing drugs and hanging with the wrong crowd.
In all honesty they didn't really keep me from doing either, but they did keep me from bringing it home with me, and in the end the separation between that home life and the excesses of my youth (honestly I'm still pretty young, but it's all relative) provided the grounding that allowed me to make the transition from rebellious teen to responsible adult.
The point is, if I had been in that situation, this shit never would have happened, I wouldn't have been drunk when I had such a responsibility, if only because I feared getting caught, I may have been a stupid rebellious little punk, but I knew better than to do that stuff around the house, especially if there was a little kid around. The difference between me and these two delinquents, other than I don't think I could kill a 7 year old girl even if I wanted to, is that I would have known better than to set myself up in that situation, because my parents saw to it that I new better than to do that kind of shit around their house.
Now, if it turns out they knew that their son was drunk or highly likely to be drunk, or there was previous violent incidents they deserve to suffer the penalty of the law. I just believe people shouldn't just automatically blame the kid's parent whenever the kid does something really bad. Sometimes, it is just *gasp* the kid's own damn fault.
My parents didn't prevent me from drinking underage, and took more of a European approach: if your kids know it's okay with you that they drink in more-or-less moderation, and that it's not a huge deal, it becomes not a huge deal for them, either. It's not a cool rebellion thing, anymore, it's just something humans do to wind down or in certain social situations. To be given license to do something is often equivalent to being given control of it -- and people are more responsible of things they control.
To me, it comes down to parenting. Yes, yes, there is the extremely rare circumstance of good parents who happen to have a previously-undetected psychotic kid -- but that's damn rare. Usually, good parenting results in at least decent kids, and good parenting also detects an unbalanced kid and gets appropriate help. The "I had no idea my son might do this!" clause is indicative of bad parenting. You raised them their whole lives, so except in rare circumstances, an alert and careful parent has some fucking warning their kid is a murderer.
:P
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
I'm sorry, that is just funny.
Before MK all I could do was jump really high and squish my friends flat, although finding a turtle shell really helped when they lined up in a neat row.
Though I can't talk much longer. Ive been playing space invaders and now that I know how to shoot down planes with a pistol Im going to stop potential terrorists, FOR AMERICA!
There wasn't anything in the article that indicated that they were drinking when the mother left the 7-year-old in their care, and it wasn't just random kids, the 7-year-old and 17-year-old were half sisters. I mean, I'm all about parents taking responsibility, but you can't expect them to by psychic about really, really dumb shit their kids might do.
Now this is fucking the same thing again.
'Oh shit I did something bad. Time to find a scapegoat'
Transformed into a fire mage? Bull fucking shit. You poured gasoline over a classmate and set em on fire you sick fuck. No amount of scapegoating is even remotely gonna save your ass.
This has nothing to do with WOW or video games. Its about people throughout history scapegoating popular media for their heinous crimes. It used to be rock music, or violent cinema. Now its just games.